Abstract
Since Mary Queen of Scots’ execution in 1587, she has become a symbol of Scottish identity, failed female leadership, and Catholic martyrdom. Throughout the twentieth century, Mary was regularly depicted on screen (Ford, 1936; Froelich, 1940; Jarrott, 1971) as a thrice-wed Catholic queen, unable to rule her country due to her feminine nature and Catholic roots. However, with the rise of third wave feminism and postfeminism in media, coupled with the increased influence of female directors and writers, Mary’s characterization has shifted from portraying female/emotional weakness and religious sacrifice to female/collaborative strength in hardship and a struggle against patriarchal prejudice. Josie Rourke’s film Mary Queen of Scots (2018) and CW’s Reign (2013-2017) present a queen who is no longer limited to her religious identity as a Catholic martyr, and consequently a weak ruler. Instead religious division is mostly sidelined, and gendered politics is the central struggle, highlighting similarities between Mary and Queen Elizabeth I of England, where previous films presented opposites. Together, these two productions transform Mary’s narrative from fragility and religion, into a struggle against misogynistic control of powerful women.
Highlights
From her execution in 1587 by Elizabeth I, the Protestant queen of England, Mary, Queen of Scots, has been an emblem for the Catholic resistance to Protestant rule, the inherent weakness of queens, and latterly of Scottish subordination to English politics
Since Mary Queen of Scots’ execution in 1587, she has become a symbol of Scottish identity, failed female leadership, and Catholic martyrdom
Josie Rourke’s film Mary Queen of Scots (2018) and CW’s Reign (2013-2017) present a queen who is no longer limited to her religious identity as a Catholic martyr, and a weak ruler
Summary
For centuries there has been a fluid relationship between political, popular, and scholarly representations of Mary Queen of Scots. All the evidence put before us here suggests a normally frigid woman.” Perhaps to justify these bizarre comments, Kenyon continued dismissively: “Mary is one of those characters who encourages prurient speculation, and this may be why she is unloved by prudent and sober historians.” Kenyon’s comment echoes the earliest Protestant commentators on Mary’s life, John Knox and George Buchanan, whose works critiqued the queen’s politics, religion, and sexuality to undermine her public authority.. All the evidence put before us here suggests a normally frigid woman.” Perhaps to justify these bizarre comments, Kenyon continued dismissively: “Mary is one of those characters who encourages prurient speculation, and this may be why she is unloved by prudent and sober historians.” Kenyon’s comment echoes the earliest Protestant commentators on Mary’s life, John Knox and George Buchanan, whose works critiqued the queen’s politics, religion, and sexuality to undermine her public authority.14 It shows how far removed Mary’s life was from the interest of academic historians in the 1960s and 1970s. In contrast to Guy and Fraser’s beliefs, Warnicke concluded that Mary “was not the open, trusting, uncomplicated woman described by some,” while judging the better-known biographies as distractingly “romantic,” and overall more concerned with British politics than the full picture. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol25/iss1/59
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
